In the Matter of		)
				)   CC Docket No. 96-45
Federal-State Joint Board on	)   
Universal Service		)

COMMENTS OF THE
MISSOURI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order Establishing Joint Board (hereinafter "the NPRM") adopted and released March 8, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission ("the FCC") has established a federal-state joint board and seeks comments from interested parties regarding its mandate to rapidly establish new procedures which implement universal service provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the 1996 Act"). The Missouri Public Service Commission ("the MoPSC") commends the prompt action of the FCC to establish the joint board, and hereby submits its comments regarding some of the issues raised in the NPRM.

Executive Summary

The MoPSC acknowledges the time constraints which have been placed on the FCC regarding implementation of some of the provisions of the 1996 Act. The far-reaching scope of the universal service sections of the Act are indicated by the 60+ page NPRM which outlines the issues on which the FCC seeks comments. At the outset, the MoPSC expresses its desire and willingness to fully cooperate with the FCC to implement the requirements of the Act. It is explicit in the Act that this should be a cooperative venture between the FCC and the states. Cooperation is an appropriate approach to this monumental task.

While it is willing to work with the FCC within the time constraints established by the Act, the MoPSC is concerned with the form of the NPRM. The NPRM does not actually propose rules or preferences upon which the MoPSC may comment; rather, it takes the form of a Notice of Inquiry, requesting comments on a series of questions. As a result, commentors are deprived of any meaningful notice of any specific proposal. Also, the size of the NPRM and the page limit on comments further deprives commentors of an adequate opportunity to comment on many of the important issues raised in this notice.

In addition, while the 1996 Act establishes deadlines regarding some matters, it also provides that the FCC may initiate whatever additional proceedings are necessary to facilitate implementation. Therefore, the MoPSC requests that the FCC defer consideration of issues which the 1996 Act does not require the FCC to address immediately to a time when the parties will have ample time and opportunity to review and address those issues. For example, issues such as a modification of the subscriber line charge ("SLC") and the carrier common line charge ("CCL") should be reserved for a further notice of proposed rulemaking.

The 1996 Act provides a sound framework for advancing competition in telecommunications markets while maintaining the commitment to universal service which was articulated in the Communications Act of 1934 and has been a concern in every general telecommunications proceeding and legislative proposal since that time. The 1996 Act recognizes the role the states must play in the transition to this new environment. The MoPSC urges the FCC to refrain from an unnecessarily prescriptive approach to implementation which may frustrate, impede or duplicate a state's efforts to foster policies contained in the 1996 Act. The MoPSC has established, as have many other states, rules which prescribe the minimum level of service which is deemed acceptable. See 4 C.S.R. 240-32.100 (Attachment 1). In some instances, these rules meet or exceed the standards proposed by the FCC for universal service support. The MoPSC urges the FCC not to adopt rules that effectively penalize those local exchange carriers ("LECs") that provided "core" services early, or that conform to a stricter standard.

Procedure

Another NPRM is needed.

The present NPRM has the form of a Notice of Inquiry; that is, it contains a series of questions rather than a proposal. The NPRM represents an understandable response to the time constraints mandated in the 1996 Act. The 1996 Act, sec. 101 (language codified at 47 U.S.C. 254(a)(1)). Nevertheless, it does not propose a specific rule. As a result, the NPRM deprives the commentators of meaningful notice of what is being proposed. This lack of notice, combined with the NPRM's broad scope and severe page and time constraints, deprives parties of a meaningful opportunity to comment.

The 1996 Act provides the FCC with an opportunity to remedy these procedural problems in a subsequent proceeding.[1] The 1996 Act also permits the FCC to engage in such other proceedings as necessary. The MoPSC looks forward to commenting on an actual proposed rule in such proceedings.

Support for Rural, Insular and High-Cost Areas and Low-Income Consumers

Maintain affordable rates in rural areas.

The NPRM suggests that local telephone rates in rural areas may increase disproportionately under the new telecommunications regulatory environment. Local rates should remain affordable. Rates for core services in rural areas should not be unduly higher than rates for similar services in urban areas.

The FCC is justified in seeking universal service support for the following services:

(1) voice grade access to the public switched network, with the ability to place and receive calls;

(2) touch-tone;

(3) single party service;

(4) access to emergency services (911); and

(5) access to operator services.

If the FCC is resolved to provide universal service support to subsidize only certain services, rather than operation costs in general, then the MoPSC would support providing subsidies for these five services, at a minimum. The MoPSC has adopted rules designed to promote the availability of each of the five services listed, including access not only to 911, but to enhanced 911 (or "E-911") where available. See, for example, 4 C.S.R. 240-32.100 (Attachment 1) . The MoPSC encourages the FCC to authorize the use of universal service fund ("USF") support to subsidize the cost of making a LEC's switch capable of providing E-911 service.

The FCC should distinguish between the cost of making a switch capable of providing the service, and the cost of providing the service itself. In states such as Missouri, the choice to have E-911 service is made by local or county governments, and the cost of providing E-911 service is borne by the taxpayers in those jurisdictions. If the FCC subsidized the cost of providing E-911 service itself, Missouri ratepayers would, in effect, pay for that subsidy twice. Therefore, the MoPSC does not support using the USF to subsidize the cost of providing E-911 service itself.

At least three additional services warrant universal service support: equal access, Internet access, and toll blocking.

The definition of basic, or minimal, service has changed over time and will continue to evolve.[2] In addition to the five services listed, it is reasonable to look at current and near future trends and consider whether the concept of minimal service needs to be expanded. Three additional services might reasonably be considered for inclusion among those essential services receiving universal service support.

The first additional service is interLATA equal access. Equal access will tend to increase toll service competition. Perhaps equal access in the intraLATA market should also be considered so as to promote the benefits of lower prices and increased options that have been developing in the interLATA market in recent years.

The second additional service is toll free customer access to an Internet access provider of a quality comparable to that provided in urban areas. The Internet is one of relatively few information resources available in rural areas. Yet access to the rural areas is hindered by toll charges that many rural customers must incur to reach Internet access providers. Permitting the customer to access an Internet provider toll free, and at a comparable quality, would facilitate the use of the Internet and would advance the goal of making services in rural areas comparable to services in urban areas.

The third additional service is toll blocking or toll limitation. The MoPSC distinguishes between a service that permits subscribers to prohibit all toll calls on their accounts ("toll blocking") and a service that permits subscribers to limit the number of toll minutes or expense chargeable to their accounts, per month ("toll limitation"). With either service, the subscriber may place collect toll calls, or place toll calls with the use of a calling card. Studies suggest that a large share of people currently lacking phone service were disconnected due to unpaid toll bills.[3] Toll blocking might permit such people to regain telephone service, enabling them to make and receive local calls, and to receive toll calls. It might also help new telephone subscribers avoid such problems. Various Missouri LECs advise the MoPSC that the recurring cost of providing either service from a digital switch is less than $.02 per access line per month. By subsidizing toll blocking, the FCC would enhance subscribership.[4]

During a transition period, LECs that offer some, but not all, core services should be able to receive USF subsidies; after the transition period, LECs that do not provide all core services should not be eligible to receive USF subsidies.

If a telecommunications company offers some but not every element of "core" service, may that company receive any universal service support? The language of the 1996 Act leaves room for dispute. The 1996 Act states--

A common carrier designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier under paragraph (2) and (3) shall be eligible to receive universal service support in accordance with section 254 and shall, throughout the service area for which the designation is received--

(A) offer the services that are supported by Federal universal service support mechanisms under section 254(c)....

The 1996 Act, sec. 102 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 214). The statute does not specify whether the carrier must offer all core services, or merely some core services, in order to receive universal service support.

In general, the MoPSC proposes that the FCC withhold universal service support from telecommunications carriers that do not provide all core services. However, an abrupt shift to the new regulatory regime might result in withdrawing financial support from the very LECs that need to implement capital improvements. This would be counter-productive. Instead, the MoPSC proposes that the FCC establish a five-year transition period during which a LEC may recover USF costs related to the provision of any core service, even if the LEC does not provide all such services. During the transition period the LEC could make whatever changes are necessary to provide all core services. After the transition period, the FCC would provide USF support only to LECs that provided all the services.

Study areas should consist of a state or a LATA.

When determining whether a LEC qualifies to receive USF, the fund administrator analyzes the costs and service related to each portion of the LEC's service territory, or "study area." The MoPSC supports analyzing a LEC's entire service territory within a state or LATA as the study areas. An analysis of such a broad area will best reflect the overall circumstances of each LEC. Smaller study areas might permit a large LEC to receive USF funding related to its high-cost areas, even though the LEC's overall costs were no higher than average.[5]

To the extent that the FCC adopts smaller study areas, the FCC may need to alter other USF eligibility criteria; for example, the FCC may need to reduce the 200,000 access line break point.[6]

The MoPSC looks forward to working cooperatively with the FCC in designating eligible telecommunications carriers to serve unserved areas.

During the transition toward a more market-oriented, less regulatory, environment, some communities may not receive all the core telecommunications services. Unserved communities diminish the value of telecommunications services to all users of the national network. It would be advisable to coordinate the activities of the FCC and State Commissions in selecting a telecommunications carrier to serve any unserved community.

Where the FCC and the MoPSC cannot reach agreement, however, the MoPSC would need to exercise its statutory duty to regulate intrastate telecommunications matters.

The FCC should allocate USF support on the basis of cost, but with a few exceptions.

The fund administrator should consider each LEC's actual costs when allocating the USF, with some exceptions. The administrator should ignore a utility's actual administrative costs, and instead impute an average administrative cost per access line. This formula would prevent LECs from obtaining USF subsidies for excessive administrative costs.[7] In addition, the administrator should consider a LEC's other subsidies so as to avoid duplication.

The FCC should maintain the subsidies imbedded in its separations rules, at least during this period of transition.

While the use of separations rules to subsidize small and high-cost LECs may not advance the cause of creating "a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework," it does advance the cause of keeping rural rates and services comparable to urban rates and services. The MoPSC requests that the FCC maintain these subsidies during the transition to a competitive market.[8]

The FCC should maintain the growth cap on the USF until completion of the Joint Board's and the FCC's deliberations in this proceeding.

The cap has been in place for approximately two years now. The time lines in the 1996 Act indicate that a new regulatory regime will be in effect shortly. Altering the USF cap for the intervening period would merely cause further instability in an already uncertain regulatory environment. Given the impending change in current USF regulations, any benefit from an immediate modification of the cap would be short-lived.[9]

Identify low-income consumers on the basis of existing programs, but provide the subsidy to the serving LEC.

Subsidies to low-income customers should be carefully targeted. The low-income individual should be identified by qualification to an existing income-support mechanism so as to avoid creating a cumbersome and expensive infrastructure to deliver telephone assistance. Aid should be directed to the qualified telephone provider, so the customer sees a lower telephone charge and the company receives the exchange-wide local rate.[10]

Calculate and pay USF subsidies equitably, whether or not the incumbent LEC is the recipient.

Support should be calculated and provided so as not to disadvantage any eligible telecommunications provider of core services.

Maintain Lifeline and Link Up.

Studies suggest that the current Lifeline Assistance and Link Up America programs succeed at targeting people who would be unable to afford telephone service otherwise.[11] Therefore, the MoPSC requests that the FCC maintain Lifeline and Link Up in their current forms. To the extent that qualification standards could be relaxed, the states are the more appropriate entity to make such a determination. Given the administrative detail needed to determine who should receive Lifeline and Link Up programs, this is a matter best entrusted to the states.[12]

The FCC should subsidize toll blocking for low-income subscribers.

Again, the MoPSC distinguishes between a service that permits subscribers to prohibit all toll calls on their accounts ("toll blocking") and a service that permits subscribers to limit the number of toll minutes or expense chargeable to their accounts, per month ("toll limitation"). These services encourage subscribership in at least two ways. They provide would-be subscribers with the assurance that their telecommunications bills will be within predictable levels. In addition, they provide the telephone company with assurance that a would-be subscriber will not incur a large uncollectible debt. Some, perhaps a significant number, of households not currently having telephone services are those removed from the system for non-payment of toll charges.[13]

However, some LECs do not provide either service. And even when a LEC does offer such a service, the cost may discourage a low-income subscriber from requesting the service. The MoPSC requests that the FCC add toll blocking or toll limitation to its list of "core" services subsidized or all users. See supra, pp. 5-7. In the event that the FCC does not designate either service a "core" service, the MoPSC requests that the FCC ensure that low-income subscribers be able to receive toll blocking or toll limitation services at no charge.

Schools, Libraries and Rural Health Care Providers

Missouri has experience in promoting telemedicine and distance learning in rural areas.

The Congress, as one of its Universal Service Principles, declares that "[e]lementary and secondary schools and classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should have access to advanced telecommunications". 47 U.S.C. 254(b)(6). Long before the 1996 Act, Missouri was in the vanguard of this effort through the cooperation of rural health care providers, schools, LECs and the MoPSC. On the basis of its experience in these matters, the MoPSC makes the following general recommendations.

Subsidize interactive video, Internet access and high speed digital transmissions, as appropriate.

When deciding which services to subsidize, Congress recognized the need to balance the value of a given service to a school, health care provider or library with the cost of the necessary subsidy.[14] Thus, when promoting advanced telecommunications services for schools, libraries and rural health care providers, the FCC should target USF dollars to subsidize only those services that provide the greatest benefit. With that in mind, the MoPSC recommends that the FCC begin by subsidizing the following services for the following purposes:

i) interactive video (for schools and telemedicine);

ii) Internet access (for schools and libraries); and

iii) high speed digital transmission (for telemedicine/teleradiology).

The FCC should periodically re-evaluate this list to determine whether some other services have become more valuable, or whether some subsidized services have become obsolete.[15] Individual states should be free to provide additional subsidies, and to subsidize additional services, as they deem appropriate.[16]

Construe "library" to include community information networks.

The MoPSC requests that the FCC construe the term "library" to include community information networks for purposes of securing USF support. Some governments and other public entities establish separate nonprofit public benefit corporations for the primary purpose of developing and maintaining computing services for the general public. These networks serve many of the functions of a library. For example, they provide a means for the public to gain access to on-line information from around the world, while also providing a means to disseminate information targeted to a local audience. To the extent that Congress intended to facilitate these functions when it directed the FCC to subsidize libraries, the FCC could further Congress's intent by also subsidizing community information networks.

When developing formulas for quantifying a discount, avoid formulas that can be easily manipulated or that treat LECs inequitably.

The FCC must also devise a formula to determine how much subsidy to provide. At a minimum, the 1996 Act directs the FCC to subsidize certain services to ensure that their rates are reasonably comparable to rates in urban areas.[17] Such subsidies would also promote two of Congress' Universal Service Principles.[18] To provide such subsidies, the FCC would need to select some means of gauging the reasonably comparable urban rates. The comparability should be judged against a measure that changes over time to reflect the impact of competition and changing costs. The measure selected should be of such a nature that it cannot be artificially manipulated so as to permit a LEC, individually or with the cooperation of its state regulators, to receive a disproportionate amount of USF support.

In addition, the 1996 Act provides for further discounts, at least for schools and libraries.[19] MoPSC requests that the FCC provide a discount of up to a certain percentage off of a standardized, indexed or computed price provided that the discounted rate is higher than the long-run incremental cost ("LRIC") established for that service. Establishing the minimum rate at LRIC has several benefits. First, it gives companies and states some flexibility without the necessity of forcing other services to subsidize the provision of the services in question. Second, it establishes a reasonable limit on the support amounts that will come from the USF. Finally, it avoids infringing on the states' rights to establish the discount amount for intrastate services.[20] Again, the FCC should select some sort of measure that a LEC could not artificially manipulate so as to receive a disproportionate amount of USF support.

In developing a formula for such discount, the FCC should avoid penalizing those companies that have already discounted their rates for the designated services. In Missouri, all but one of the LECs have distance learning tariffs that provide the necessary services at favorable rates. For instance, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("SWBT") offers flat-rate, statewide average rates which are already very close to its LRIC. Some LECs may have difficulty justifying a discount relative to their current rates. In contrast, a LEC that has not already established a rate for these services may be tempted to set its rates arbitrarily high, and subsequently to offer an arbitrarily large discount and receive the correspondingly large USF subsidy. If the support mechanism contemplated under this section is not set at an absolute value, but is simply a percentage off an arbitrarily-established price, then those companies that have already made the good-faith commitment to these services, by setting their rates as low as possible, will be penalized. The pre-discount level should be established in such a fashion that companies that are already offering services at a price close to the post-discounted price will be able to avail themselves of USF support.

Construe "rural" broadly.

The 1996 Act repeatedly refers to "rural" and "urban" areas, but does not provide guidance for distinguishing between the two. When the FCC makes its determination as to which health care providers serve people in "rural" areas, the MoPSC requests that the FCC construe the word "rural" as liberally as possible. Definitions of "rural" found in the Health Resources and Services Administration ("HRSA") criteria and the U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA") criteria may each be too restrictive. A person could live in a county adjacent to a metropolitan county and still be more than an hour away from a hospital that can do more than stabilize and transport a seriously ill or injured person. A more appropriate measure might add to either of the above-mentioned sets of criteria such considerations as the driving distance from a hospital or medical center that provides a certain level of care, or the number of physicians within a given community. Granted, the more generous the definition of "rural", the more telemedicine services will be eligible for subsidy. However, the MoPSC doubts that the subsidy would be squandered. Doctors and patients will not make unnecessary use of telemedicine, because telemedicine is less convenient and familiar than face-to-face meetings. Doctors and patients will probably use telemedicine only under circumstances of urgent need or great distance, which is precisely when it should be used. If a generous definition of "rural" creates a loophole whereby the USF subsidizes an occasional consultation between urban tertiary care hospitals, it is a small price to pay to ensure that rural residents may receive the same benefit. Considering the nature of this issue (to wit: life and death), it would be only rational to err on the side of caution and declare even marginally rural areas to be eligible for support from the USF.

The USF should subsidize telecommunications between rural and urban health care providers. Telemedicine can achieve its greatest benefit by permitting rural hospitals and clinics to consult with large tertiary care centers, which are almost always found in urban areas. A misguided emphasis on a hospital's location, rather than on the location of the hospital's patients, might prompt the FCC to withhold subsidies for communications with urban hospitals. Such a policy would frustrate Congress' purpose in legislating such subsidies,[21] and would impede the development of telemedicine.

Finally, school consortia should be considered "rural" if any member school is rural. This may serve to encourage larger schools with greater resources and course offerings to make those available to rural schools.

Other Universal Service support mechanisms

Postpone any discussion of SLCs and CCLs.

The 1996 Act requires parties to address a myriad of issues in a compressed time frame. But, thankfully, it does not require the parties to address the subscriber line charge ("SLC") and carrier common line charge ("CCL"). If the FCC intends to reconsider these issues, it should do so at a time when the FCC and the parties do not face so many Congressionally-imposed deadlines, and under circumstances that will permit a fuller exposition of these issues. This request to defer should not be construed as disinterest by the MoPSC in these issues. To the contrary, the MoPSC has adamantly opposed increases in the SLCs. Consumers see these charges as a barrier to access to the network; thus, increasing the SLCs would frustrate the goal of enhancing subscribership. The MoPSC supports retaining the caps on SLCs.

Subsidize access for high-cost LECs.

Large non-pooling incumbent LECs pay a fee on each minute of customer use to provide long-term support ("LTS") to subsidize the access rates of high-cost LECs. The fee is collected as part of the LECs' CCL. This subsidy reduces the pressure on interexchange carriers ("IXCs") to charge more to serve high-cost areas than low-cost areas ("de-average rates"). The MoPSC supports maintaining geographically averaged toll rates. See 47 U.S.C. 254(g) (prohibiting IXCs from geographically de-averaging rates).

In the absence of the LTS, high-cost LECs would need to compensate for the loss of the fund by increasing some rates. To the extent that a LEC would increase CCL access rates, fewer IXCs would be willing to serve high-cost areas, thereby reducing competition in high-cost, predominantly rural, areas. This fact would frustrate the goal of making service in rural areas comparable to service in urban areas.

For the above reasons, the MoPSC supports, at a minimum, the continuation of the LTS program as presently structured. The MoPSC suggests that the FCC expand the process to require all interstate telecommunications service providers, as well as the large non-pooling incumbent LECs, to contribute to the support pool, as envisioned by 47 U.S.C. 254 (d).

Administration

A neutral third party should administer the USF.

The USF, as a national program, benefits from having one national administrator. For that reason, the MoPSC opposes delegating the fund's administration to the States.[22] Instead, the MoPSC requests that the fund be administered by a neutral third party governed by a board whose members reflect America's diversity, with input from State regulators.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________

Eric B. Witte
Assistant General Counsel
Attorney for the
Missouri Public Service Commission
P.O. Box 360
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
573-751-4140

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing document was served on this 10th day of April, 1996, on the persons listed on the attached service list.

________________________

[2]47 U.S.C. 254(e) provides that--

(1) IN GENERAL.--telecommunications services Universal service is an evolving level of that the Commission shall establish periodically under this section, taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services....

* * *

(2) ALTERATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS.--The Joint Board may, from time to time, recommend to the Commission modifications in the definition of the services that are supported by Federal universal services support mechanisms.

[3][1 Non-Customer Survey] Field Research Corp., Affordability of Telephone Service S-7, S-19 to S-20 (1993); Milton Mueller & Jorge Reina Schement, Rutgers Univ. Project on Info. Policy, Universal Service from the Bottom Up: A Profile of Telecommunications Access in Camden, New Jersey 3 (1995); Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., Submission of Telephone Penetration Studies in Formal Case No. 850 (D.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, Oct. 1, 1993).

[5]See Comments of the Missouri Public Service Commission, October 6, 1995, pp. 11, 14-16, 19-20 in response to CC Docket No. 80-286, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board.

[6]Id.

[7]See Comments of the Missouri Public Service Commission, October 26, 1994, pp. 5-6 in response to CC Docket No. 80-286, Notice of Inquiry, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board; Comments of the Missouri Public Service Commission, October 6, 1995, pp. 10-12, 18-19 in response to CC Docket No. 80-286, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board.

[8]See Comments of the Missouri Public Service Commission, October 26, 1994, pp. 5-6 in response to CC Docket No. 80-286, Notice of Inquiry, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board; Comments of the Missouri Public Service Commission, October 6, 1995, in response to CC Docket No. 80-286, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board.

[9]Comments of the Missouri Public Service Commission, October 6, 1995, p. 16 in response to CC Docket No. 80-286, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board.

[10]Id. at 10; Comments of the Missouri Public Service Commission, October 26, 1994, pp. 2-3 in response to CC Docket No. 80-286, Notice of Inquiry, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board.

[11]Herbert S. Dordick & Marilyn Diane Fife, Universal Service in Post-Divestiture USA, 15 Telecomm. Pol'y 119, 127 (1991); Thomas J. Makarewicz, The Effectiveness of Low-Income Telephone Assistance Programmes: Southwestern Bell's Experience, 15 Telecomm. Pol'y 223, 223-40 (1991); J.L. Walter, Assessing the Effectiveness of Residential Rate Assistance Programs in Furthering the Goal of Universal Service, in Proceedings of the Eighth Biennial Regulatory Information Conference 171, 190-91 (1992).

[12]See Comments of the Missouri Public Service Commission, September 26, 1995, pp. 4-6 in response to CC Docket No. 95-115 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission's Rules and Policies to Increase Subscribership and Usage of the Public Switched Network.

[13]See note 3, supra.

[14]47 U.S.C. 254(h) provides that--

(2) ADVANCED SERVICES- The Commission shall establish competitively neutral rules- -

(A) to enhance, to the extent technically feasible and economically reasonable, access to advanced and information services....

* * *

(4) ELIGIBILITY OF USERS- No entity listed in this subsection shall be entitled to preferential rates or treatment ... if such entity operates as a for- profit business, is a school ... with an endowment of more than $50,000,000, or is a library not eligible for participation in State- based plans for funds under title III of the Library Services and Construction Act....

(1) IN GENERAL.--Universal service is an evolving level of telecommunications services that the Commission shall establish periodically under this section, taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services....

(2) ALTERATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS.--The Joint Board may, from time to time, recommend to the Commission modifications in the definitions of the services that are supported by Federal universal services support mechanisms.

[17]47 U.S.C. 254(h)(1)(A) provides that--

HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FOR RURAL AREAS.--A telecommunications carrier shall ... provide telecommunications services which are necessary for the provision of health care services ... to any public or nonprofit health care provider that serves persons who reside in rural areas ... at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas....

Consumers in all regions of the Nation ... should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas.

EDUCATIONAL PROVIDERS AND LIBRARIES.--All telecommunications carriers serving a geographic area shall ... provide [designated] services to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries for educational purposes at rates less than the amounts charged for similar services to other parties.

[21]Rather than targeting hospitals in rural areas, Congress specifically targeted "any ... health care provider that serves persons who reside in rural areas...." 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(1)(A) (emphasis added).

[22]See Comments of the Missouri Public Service Commission, October 26, 1994, pp. 3-5 in response to CC Docket No. 80-286, Notice of Inquiry, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board; Comments of the Missouri Public Service Commission, October 6, 1995, p. 20 in response to CC Docket No. 80-286, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board.